1. This forum section is a read-only archive which contains old newsgroup posts. If you wish to post a query, please do so in one of our main forum sections (here). This way you will get a faster, better response from the members on Motherboard Point.

Anand: XBox360 CPU and PS3 Cell CPU have poor realworld performance

Discussion in 'Intel' started by Guest, Jun 29, 2005.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2461

    Microsoft's Xbox 360 & Sony's PlayStation 3 - Examples of Poor CPU
    Performance

    Date: June 29th, 2005
    Author: Anand Lal Shimpi

    "In our last article we had a fairly open-ended discussion about many of the
    challenges facing both of the recently announced next-generation game
    consoles. We discussed misconceptions about the Cell processor and its
    ability to accelerate physics calculations, as well as touched on the GPUs
    of both platforms. In the end, both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 are
    much closer competitors than you would think based on first impressions.

    The Xbox 360's Xenon CPU features more general purpose cores than the
    PlayStation 3 (3 vs. 1), however game developers will most likely only be
    using one of those cores for the majority of their calculations, leveling
    the playing field considerably.

    The Cell processor derives much of its power from its array of 7 SPEs
    (Synergistic Processing Elements), however as we discovered in our last
    article, their purpose is far more specialized than we had thought.
    Speaking with Epic Games' head developer, Tim Sweeney, he provided a much
    more balanced view of what sorts of tasks could take advantage of the Cell's
    SPE array.

    The GPUs of the next-generation platforms also proved to be quite
    interesting. In Part I we speculated as to the true nature of NVIDIA's RSX
    in the PS3, concluding that it's quite likely little more than a higher
    clocked G70 GPU. We will expand on that discussion a bit more in this
    article. We also looked at Xenos, the Xbox 360's GPU and characterized it
    as equivalent to a very flexible 24-pipe R420. Despite the inclusion of the
    10MB of embedded DRAM, Xenos and RSX ended up being quite similar in our
    expectations for performance; and that pretty much summarized all of our
    findings - the two consoles, although implementing very different
    architectures, ended up being so very similar.

    So we've concluded that the two platforms will probably end up performing
    very similarly, but there was one very important element excluded from the
    first article: a comparison to present-day PC architectures. The reason a
    comparison to PC architectures is important is because it provides an
    evaluation point to gauge the expected performance of these next-generation
    consoles. We've heard countless times that these new consoles would offer
    better gaming performance than anything we've had on the PC, or anything we
    would have for a matter of years. Now it's time to actually put those
    claims to the test, and that's exactly what we did.

    Speaking under conditions of anonymity with real world game developers who
    have had first hand experience writing code for both the Xbox 360 and
    PlayStation 3 hardware (and dev kits where applicable), we asked them for
    nothing more than their brutal honesty. What did they think of these new
    consoles? Are they really outfitted with the PC-eclipsing performance we've
    been lead to believe they have? The answer is actually quite frequently
    found in history; as with anything, you get what you pay for.







    Learning from Generation X
    The original Xbox console marked a very important step in the evolution of
    gaming consoles - it was the first console that was little more than a
    Windows PC.





    It featured a 733MHz Pentium III processor with a 128KB L2 cache, paired up
    with a modified version of NVIDIA's nForce chipset (modified to support
    Intel's Pentium III bus instead of the Athlon XP it was designed for). The
    nForce chipset featured an integrated GPU, codenamed the NV2A, offering
    performance very similar to that of a GeForce3. The system had a 5X PC DVD
    drive and an 8GB IDE hard drive, and all of the controllers interfaced to
    the console using USB cables with a proprietary connector.

    For the most part, game developers were quite pleased with the original
    Xbox. It offered them a much more powerful CPU, GPU and overall platform
    than anything had before. But as time went on, there were definitely
    limitations that developers ran into with the first Xbox.

    One of the biggest limitations ended up being the meager 64MB of memory that
    the system shipped with. Developers had asked for 128MB and the motherboard
    even had positions silk screened for an additional 64MB, but in an attempt
    to control costs the final console only shipped with 64MB of memory.







    The next problem is that the NV2A GPU ended up not having the fill rate and
    memory bandwidth necessary to drive high resolutions, which kept the Xbox
    from being used as a HD console.

    Although Intel outfitted the original Xbox with a Pentium III/Celeron hybrid
    in order to improve performance yet maintain its low cost, at 733MHz that
    quickly became a performance bottleneck for more complex games after the
    console's introduction.

    The combination of GPU and CPU limitations made 30 fps a frame rate target
    for many games, while simpler titles were able to run at 60 fps. Split
    screen play on Halo would even stutter below 30 fps depending on what was
    happening on screen, and that was just a first-generation title. More
    experience with the Xbox brought creative solutions to the limitations of
    the console, but clearly most game developers had a wish list of things they
    would have liked to have seen in the Xbox successor. Similar complaints
    were levied against the PlayStation 2, but in some cases they were more
    extreme (e.g. its 4MB frame buffer).

    Given that consoles are generally evolutionary, taking lessons learned in
    previous generations and delivering what the game developers want in order
    to create the next-generation of titles, it isn't a surprise to see that a
    number of these problems are fixed in the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.

    One of the most important changes with the new consoles is that system
    memory has been bumped from 64MB on the original Xbox to a whopping 512MB on
    both the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3. For the Xbox, that's a factor of 8
    increase, and over 12x the total memory present on the PlayStation 2.

    The other important improvement with the next-generation of consoles is that
    the GPUs have been improved tremendously. With 6 - 12 month product cycles,
    it's no surprise that in the past 4 years GPUs have become much more
    powerful. By far the biggest upgrade these new consoles will offer, from a
    graphics standpoint, is the ability to support HD resolutions.

    There are obviously other, less-performance oriented improvements such as
    wireless controllers and more ubiquitous multi-channel sound support. And
    with Sony's PlayStation 3, disc capacity goes up thanks to their embracing
    the Blu-ray standard.



    But then we come to the issue of the CPUs in these next-generation
    consoles, and the level of improvement they offer. Both the Xbox 360 and
    the PlayStation 3 offer multi-core CPUs to supposedly usher in a new era of
    improved game physics and reality. Unfortunately, as we have found out, the
    desire to bring multi-core CPUs to these consoles was made a reality at the
    expense of performance in a very big way.





    Problems with the Architecture
    At the heart of both the Xenon and Cell processors is IBM's custom PowerPC
    based core. We've discussed this core in our previous articles, but it is
    best characterized as being quite simple. The core itself is a very narrow
    2-issue in-order execution core, featuring a 64KB L1 cache (32K
    instruction/32K data) and either a 1MB or 512KB L2 cache (for Xenon or Cell,
    respectively). Supporting SMT, the core can execute two threads
    simultaneously similar to a Hyper Threading enabled Pentium 4. The Xenon
    CPU is made up of three of these cores, while Cell features just one.

    Each individual core is extremely small, making the 3-core Xenon CPU in the
    Xbox 360 smaller than a single core 90nm Pentium 4. While we don't have
    exact die sizes, we've heard that the number is around 1/2 the size of the
    90nm Prescott die.





    IBM's pitch to Microsoft was based on the peak theoretical floating point
    performance-per-dollar that the Xenon CPU would offer, and given Microsoft's
    focus on cost savings with the Xbox 360, they took the bait.

    While Microsoft and Sony have been childishly playing this flops-war,
    comparing the 1 TFLOPs processing power of the Xenon CPU to the 2 TFLOPs
    processing power of the Cell, the real-world performance war has already
    been lost.

    Right now, from what we've heard, the real-world performance of the Xenon
    CPU is about twice that of the 733MHz processor in the first Xbox.
    Considering that this CPU is supposed to power the Xbox 360 for the next 4 -
    5 years, it's nothing short of disappointing. To put it in perspective,
    floating point multiplies are apparently 1/3 as fast on Xenon as on a
    Pentium 4.

    The reason for the poor performance? The very narrow 2-issue in-order core
    also happens to be very deeply pipelined, apparently with a branch predictor
    that's not the best in the business. In the end, you get what you pay for,
    and with such a small core, it's no surprise that performance isn't anywhere
    near the Athlon 64 or Pentium 4 class.

    The Cell processor doesn't get off the hook just because it only uses a
    single one of these horribly slow cores; the SPE array ends up being fairly
    useless in the majority of situations, making it little more than a waste of
    die space.

    We mentioned before that collision detection is able to be accelerated on
    the SPEs of Cell, despite being fairly branch heavy. The lack of a branch
    predictor in the SPEs apparently isn't that big of a deal, since most
    collision detection branches are basically random and can't be predicted
    even with the best branch predictor. So not having a branch predictor
    doesn't
    hurt, what does hurt however is the very small amount of local memory
    available to each SPE. In order to access main memory, the SPE places a DMA
    request on the bus (or the PPE can initiate the DMA request) and waits for
    it to be fulfilled. From those that have had experience with the PS3
    development kits, this access takes far too long to be used in many real
    world scenarios. It is the small amount of local memory that each SPE has
    access to that limits the SPEs from being able to work on more than a
    handful of tasks. While physics acceleration is an important one, there are
    many more tasks that can't be accelerated by the SPEs because of the memory
    limitation.

    The other point that has been made is that even if you can offload some of
    the physics calculations to the SPE array, the Cell's PPE ends up being a
    pretty big bottleneck thanks to its overall lackluster performance. It's
    akin to having an extremely fast GPU but without a fast CPU to pair it up
    with.





    What About Multithreading?
    We of course asked the obvious question: would game developers rather have 3
    slow general purpose cores, or one of those cores paired with an array of
    specialized SPEs? The response was unanimous, everyone we have spoken to
    would rather take the general purpose core approach.

    Citing everything from ease of programming to the limitations of the SPEs we
    mentioned previously, the Xbox 360 appears to be the more developer-friendly
    of the two platforms according to the cross-platform developers we've spoken
    to. Despite being more developer-friendly, the Xenon CPU is still not what
    developers wanted.

    The most ironic bit of it all is that according to developers, if either
    manufacturer had decided to use an Athlon 64 or a Pentium D in their
    next-gen console, they would be significantly ahead of the competition in
    terms of CPU performance.

    While the developers we've spoken to agree that heavily multithreaded game
    engines are the future, that future won't really take form for another 3 - 5
    years. Even Microsoft admitted to us that all developers are focusing on
    having, at most, one or two threads of execution for the game engine
    itself - not the four or six threads that the Xbox 360 was designed for.

    Even when games become more aggressive with their multithreading, targeting
    2 - 4 threads, most of the work will still be done in a single thread. It
    won't be until the next step in multithreaded architectures where that
    single thread gets broken down even further, and by that time we'll be
    talking about Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4. In the end, the more
    multithreaded nature of these new console CPUs doesn't help paint much of a
    brighter performance picture - multithreaded or not, game developers are not
    pleased with the performance of these CPUs.

    What about all those Flops?
    The one statement that we heard over and over again was that Microsoft was
    sold on the peak theoretical performance of the Xenon CPU. Ever since the
    announcement of the Xbox 360 and PS3 hardware, people have been set on
    comparing Microsoft's figure of 1 trillion floating point operations per
    second to Sony's figure of 2 trillion floating point operations per second
    (TFLOPs). Any AnandTech reader should know for a fact that these numbers
    are meaningless, but just in case you need some reasoning for why, let's
    look at the facts.

    First and foremost, a floating point operation can be anything; it can be
    adding two floating point numbers together, or it can be performing a dot
    product on two floating point numbers, it can even be just calculating the
    complement of a fp number. Anything that is executed on a FPU is fair game
    to be called a floating point operation.

    Secondly, both floating point power numbers refer to the whole system, CPU
    and GPU. Obviously a GPU's floating point processing power doesn't mean
    anything if you're trying to run general purpose code on it and vice versa.
    As we've seen from the graphics market, characterizing GPU performance in
    terms of generic floating point operations per second is far from the full
    performance story.

    Third, when a manufacturer is talking about peak floating point performance
    there are a few things that they aren't taking into account. Being able to
    process billions of operations per second depends on actually being able to
    have that many floating point operations to work on. That means that you
    have to have enough bandwidth to keep the FPUs fed, no mispredicted
    branches, no cache misses and the right structure of code to make sure that
    all of the FPUs can be fed at all times so they can execute at their peak
    rates. We already know that's not the case as game developers have already
    told us that the Xenon CPU isn't even in the same realm of performance as
    the Pentium 4 or Athlon 64. Not to mention that the requirements for
    hitting peak theoretical performance are always ridiculous; caches are only
    so big and thus there will come a time where a request to main memory is
    needed, and you can expect that request to be fulfilled in a few hundred
    clock cycles, where no floating point operations will be happening at all.

    So while there may be some extreme cases where the Xenon CPU can hit its
    peak performance, it sure isn't happening in any real world code.

    The Cell processor is no different; given that its PPE is identical to one
    of the PowerPC cores in Xenon, it must derive its floating point performance
    superiority from its array of SPEs. So what's the issue with 218 GFLOPs
    number (2 TFLOPs for the whole system)? Well, from what we've heard, game
    developers are finding that they can't use the SPEs for a lot of tasks. So
    in the end, it doesn't matter what peak theoretical performance of Cell's
    SPE array is, if those SPEs aren't being used all the time.



    Another way to look at this comparison of flops is to look at integer add
    latencies on the Pentium 4 vs. the Athlon 64. The Pentium 4 has two double
    pumped ALUs, each capable of performing two add operations per clock, that's
    a total of 4 add operations per clock; so we could say that a 3.8GHz Pentium
    4 can perform 15.2 billion operations per second. The Athlon 64 has three
    ALUs each capable of executing an add every clock; so a 2.8GHz Athlon 64
    can perform 8.4 billion operations per second. By this silly console
    marketing logic, the Pentium 4 would be almost twice as fast as the Athlon
    64, and a multi-core Pentium 4 would be faster than a multi-core Athlon 64.
    Any AnandTech reader should know that's hardly the case. No code is
    composed entirely of add instructions, and even if it were, eventually the
    Pentium 4 and Athlon 64 will have to go out to main memory for data, and
    when they do, the Athlon 64 has a much lower latency access to memory than
    the P4. In the end, despite what these horribly concocted numbers may lead
    you to believe, they say absolutely nothing about performance. The exact
    same situation exists with the CPUs of the next-generation consoles; don't
    fall for it.





    Why did Sony/MS do it?
    For Sony, it doesn't take much to see that the Cell processor is eerily
    similar to the Emotion Engine in the PlayStation 2, at least conceptually.
    Sony clearly has an idea of what direction they would like to go in, and it
    doesn't happen to be one that's aligned with much of the rest of the
    industry. Sony's past successes have really come, not because of the
    hardware, but because of the developers and their PSX/PS2 exclusive titles.
    A single hot title can ship hundreds of millions of consoles, and by our
    count, Sony has had many more of those than Microsoft had with the first
    Xbox.

    Sony shipped around 4 times as many PlayStation 2 consoles as Microsoft did
    Xboxes, regardless of the hardware platform, a game developer won't turn
    down working with the PS2 - the install base is just that attractive. So
    for Sony, the Cell processor may be strange and even undesirable for game
    developers, but the developers will come regardless.

    The real surprise was Microsoft; with the first Xbox, Microsoft listened
    very closely to the wants and desires of game developers. This time around,
    despite what has been said publicly, the Xbox 360's CPU architecture wasn't
    what game developers had asked for.

    They wanted a multi-core CPU, but not such a significant step back in single
    threaded performance. When AMD and Intel moved to multi-core designs, they
    did so at the expense of a few hundred MHz in clock speed, not by taking a
    step back in architecture.

    We suspect that a big part of Microsoft's decision to go with the Xenon core
    was because of its extremely small size. A smaller die means lower system
    costs, and if Microsoft indeed launches the Xbox 360 at $299 the Xenon CPU
    will be a big reason why that was made possible.

    Another contributing factor may be the fact that Microsoft wanted to own the
    IP of the silicon that went into the Xbox 360. We seriously doubt that
    either AMD or Intel would be willing to grant them the right to make Pentium
    4 or Athlon 64 CPUs, so it may have been that IBM was the only partner
    willing to work with Microsoft's terms and only with this one specific core.

    Regardless of the reasoning, not a single developer we've spoken to thinks
    that it was the right decision.





    The Saving Grace: The GPUs
    Although both manufacturers royally screwed up their CPUs, all developers
    have agreed that they are quite pleased with the GPU power of the
    next-generation consoles.

    First, let's talk about NVIDIA's RSX in the PlayStation 3. We discussed the
    possibility of RSX offloading vertex processing onto the Cell processor, but
    more and more it seems that isn't the case. It looks like the RSX will
    basically be a 90nm G70 with Turbo Cache running at 550MHz, and the
    performance will be quite good.

    One option we didn't discuss in the last article, was that the G70 GPU may
    feature a number of disabled shader pipes already to improve yield. The
    move to 90nm may allow for those pipes to be enabled and thus allowing for
    another scenario where the RSX offers higher performance at the same
    transistor count as the present-day G70. Sony may be hesitant to reveal the
    actual number of pixel and vertex pipes in the RSX because honestly they
    won't know until a few months before mass production what their final yields
    will be.

    Despite strong performance and support for 1080p, a large number of
    developers are targeting 720p for their PS3 titles and won't support 1080p.
    Those that are simply porting current-generation games over will have no
    problems running at 1080p, but anyone working on a truly next-generation
    title won't have the fill rate necessary to render at 1080p.

    Another interesting point is that despite its lack of "free 4X AA" like the
    Xbox 360, in some cases it won't matter. Titles that use longer pixel
    shader programs end up being bound by pixel shader performance rather than
    memory bandwidth, so the performance difference between no AA and 2X/4X AA
    may end up being quite small. Not all titles will push the RSX to the
    limits however, and those titles will definitely see a performance drop with
    AA enabled. In the end, whether the RSX's lack of embedded DRAM matters
    will be entirely dependent on the game engine being developed for the
    platform. Games that make more extensive use of long pixel shaders will see
    less of an impact with AA enabled than those that are more texture bound.
    Game developers are all over the map on this one, so it wouldn't be fair to
    characterize all of the games as falling into one category or another.

    ATI's Xenos GPU is also looking pretty good and most are expecting
    performance to be very similar to the RSX, but real world support for this
    won't be ready for another couple of months. Developers have just recently
    received more final Xbox 360 hardware, and gauging performance of the actual
    Xenos GPU compared to the R420 based solutions in the G5 development kits
    will take some time. Since the original dev kits offered significantly
    lower performance, developers will need a bit of time to figure out what
    realistic limits the Xenos GPU will have.





    Final Words
    Just because these CPUs and GPUs are in a console doesn't mean that we
    should throw away years of knowledge from the PC industry - performance
    doesn't come out of thin air, and peak performance is almost never achieved.
    Clever marketing however, will always try to fool the consumer.

    And that's what we have here today, with the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3.
    Both consoles are marketed to be much more powerful than they actually are,
    and from talking to numerous game developers it seems that the real world
    performance of these platforms isn't anywhere near what it was supposed to
    be.

    It looks like significant advancements in game physics won't happen on
    consoles for another 4 or 5 years, although it may happen with PC games much
    before that.

    It's not all bad news however; the good news is that both GPUs are quite
    possibly the most promising part of the new consoles. With the performance
    that we have seen from NVIDIA's G70, we have very high expectations for the
    360 and PS3. The ability to finally run at HD resolutions in all games will
    bring a much needed element to console gaming.

    And let's not forget all of the other improvements to these next-generation
    game consoles. The CPUs, despite being relatively lackluster, will still be
    faster than their predecessors and increased system memory will give
    developers more breathing room. Then there are other improvements such as
    wireless controllers, better online play and updated game engines that will
    contribute to an overall better gaming experience.

    In the end, performance could be better, the consoles aren't what they could
    have been had the powers at be made some different decisions. While they
    will bring better quality games to market and will be better than their
    predecessors, it doesn't look like they will be the end of PC gaming any
    more than the Xbox and PS2 were when they were launched. The two markets
    will continue to coexist, with consoles being much easier to deal with, and
    PCs offering some performance-derived advantages.

    With much more powerful CPUs and, in the near future, more powerful GPUs,
    the PC paired with the right developers should be able to bring about that
    revolution in game physics and graphics we've been hoping for. Consoles
    will help accelerate the transition to multithreaded gaming, but it looks
    like it will take PC developers to bring about real change in things like
    game physics, AI and other non-visual elements of gaming. "
     
    Guest, Jun 29, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    Judd Guest

    YAWN... we all knew they were duds. All the Cell liars out there can now
    eat their crow. In 2006, Intel will have a completely new CPU platform that
    will crush anything those new consoles can do by a large factor and you bet
    the graphics will be awesome. No wonder Mac moved over. The Cell is a dud.
    What a crock.

    Judd
     
    Judd, Jun 30, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Guest

    Alex Johnson Guest

    Only if by "completely new" you mean "given a new name" and by "CPU
    platform" you mean "an attempt to wring more money out of consumers by
    branding things differently--like Centrino did".

    Alex
     
    Alex Johnson, Jun 30, 2005
    #3
  4. Naive Intel fanboy, wake up and smell the bullshit.

    Tony
     
    Tony DiMarzio, Jun 30, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    Judd Guest

    Yeah, we're so naive, that's why Intel is on top... because we're all naive.
    Dumbass!
     
    Judd, Jul 1, 2005
    #5
  6. Intel is on top because it is 965-Billion-ton gorilla with almost limitless
    funds available to it. They man-handle the competition with marketing and
    unfair business practices.... not technology. In case you haven't heard...
    AMD has had superior CPU architecture since the 1999 Athlon. But.... of
    course... you're right. The Athlon 64's and X2's are such pieces of shit
    that no one, especially Dell, should ever put them in a PC.

    Tony
     
    Tony DiMarzio, Jul 1, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    Judd Guest

    Don't believe everything you hear. Fact is, the Cell is lame and it's about
    time someone told the truth. Changing the subject to AMD isn't helping your
    premise.
     
    Judd, Jul 1, 2005
    #7
  8. Huh? The cell? I could give two-sh$ts about the cell. Only reason I posted
    was because I can spot an Intel fanboy from a mile away.
     
    Tony DiMarzio, Jul 1, 2005
    #8
  9. Guest

    Grumble Guest

    Alex,

    I'm confused. Is the urge to play devil's advocate so strong that
    you must bite the hand that feeds you? :)
     
    Grumble, Jul 1, 2005
    #9
  10. Guest

    Eric DELAGE Guest

    Don't you think that it's a little bit too simplistic to compare the
    processors of two products - PS & XBOX - with the processors of PCs
    whose retail price targets is not comparable? PS & XBOX will cost
    150/200-300$ during their lifetime while the PC will cost about
    600-1000$. Give Sony and Microsoft 600-1000$ and they will probably
    endup w/ choosing high-end processors from Intel or AMD ;-) A good
    question would be: what could be the best architecture for 100$ incl.
    memories (I let the remaining $ for the packaging and the marketing
    guys)?

    Eric
     
    Eric DELAGE, Jul 1, 2005
    #10
  11. Guest

    Peter Grandi Guest

    On 1 Jul 2005 03:50:51 -0700, (Eric
    [ ... fanboys slagging each other off about PC/PS3/Xbox 360 ... ]

    On fanboy attitude:

    http://WWW.GameSpot.com/features/6128136/p-18.html

    eric_delage> Don't you think that it's a little bit too
    eric_delage> simplistic to compare the processors of two
    eric_delage> products - PS & XBOX - with the processors of PCs
    eric_delage> whose retail price targets is not comparable?

    This is a decent point, but it has a big flaw: the hype from
    both Sony and Microsoft is heavy hitting about the theme ''so
    much more powerful than a PC, it is a supercomputer''.

    If the hype is of that kind, and it me it looks like it is, then
    it is fair to do comparisons wrt PCs.

    eric_delage> PS & XBOX will cost 150/200-300$ during their
    eric_delage> lifetime while the PC will cost about 600-1000$.

    But a fair comparison is between a the console price at their
    introduction and the price of a PC at the same date that can run
    the same type of games at the same overall quality. Usually as
    to the price differential has been a factor of two, and then one
    gets a fair bit more with a PC.

    eric_delage> A good question would be: what could be the best
    eric_delage> architecture for 100$ incl. memories (I let the
    eric_delage> remaining $ for the packaging and the marketing
    eric_delage> guys)?

    Thats probably wrong; the consoles have no margin for packaging
    and marketing, because they are just no-overhead platforms for
    the overhead heavy stuff, the games. Current estimates of the
    _manufacturing_ cost of PS3/Xbox 360 are a bit higher than their
    sale price.

    The all important number for any console are the sucker ratios:
    how many games a console user usually buys for it over its
    lifetime, and whether that number is greater than the minimum
    needed to break even. Once that number is exceeded it almost
    pure profit.

    The nightmare for console manufacturers is those guys who buy
    all 3 of them and 1-2 games each; the dream is the guy who buys
    one and 8-10 games for it.

    There are intense ''rumours'' that in order to stack the odds
    PS3/Xbox 360 games will be much more expensive than current
    games, after all semi-monopolists can charge whatever the market
    will bear (echoes of the CD price raises).

    I suspect that this is a miscalculation for the companies
    involved, even if not for their executives' bonuses.
     
    Peter Grandi, Jul 2, 2005
    #11
  12. Guest

    Bernd Paysan Guest

    The nightmare of PS3 probably is that a supercomputer lab buys several ten
    thousands of them, and the Linux harddisk kit for each (which probably is
    the only PS3 "game" without the usual royalties). But IBM will make a blade
    server for this sort of customer ;-).
     
    Bernd Paysan, Jul 2, 2005
    #12
  13. Guest

    Judd Guest

    Huh? The cell? I could give two-sh$ts about the cell. Only reason I posted
    You can also spot your gay lover from a mile away.
     
    Judd, Jul 5, 2005
    #13
  14. That was the most pathetic rebuttal I've seen in ... well... that's almost
    as bad as "Yeah.. well.. well you're a stupid poopie head!"

    very sad...
     
    Tony DiMarzio, Jul 5, 2005
    #14
  15. Guest

    Judd Guest

    So sad that you had to write a whole poorly constructed sentence about it.
    Must have hit a sore spot eh fagboy.
     
    Judd, Jul 6, 2005
    #15
  16. Guest

    chrisv Guest

    *plonk*
     
    chrisv, Jul 6, 2005
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.