3 ms·
Are you talking about micro-consoles? Why would they be better with Atom over something like Tegra K1? (which the first Android TV box is said to have anyway).
by higherpurpose 12y ago
Are you talking about micro-consoles? Why would they be better with Atom over something like Tegra K1? (which the first Android TV box is said to have anyway).
Intel has given up on TV's a long time ago - around the time it forced Logitech to launch the first Google TV for $300 because Atom was like $90 a piece, as a component (probably making for about 50 percent of its BOM).
- ac29 12y agoSure, the Atom vs K1 comparison isn't necessarily in favor of Intel, but the comment you are replying to didn't mention Atom. I would argue that gaming consoles (micro or not) do make more sense with a X86 processor than what is available in ARM space currently. Think Intel i5 or AMD's APUs though, not Atom.
- Narishma 12y agoConsoles make no sense with Intel chips, just for cost reasons.
- rbanffy 12y agoWhile there is a huge benefit in running as much computation as possible out of the CPU and on more specialized chips, the two leading high end consoles use x86 CPUs to run a fairly large part of the overall processing. ARM is no magic and its price advantage came mostly from being simple and good enough at a time even the lowest end x86 would be overkill. Today there are some very low power x86 solutions that can compete with ARM solutions in both price and processing/watt.
- Narishma 12y agoI was talking specifically about chips made by Intel, not x86.