Will there come a day when consoles like PlayStation and XBox use ARM CPUs?
Hmm. In that case perhaps portables like the Steam Deck might switch over?As long as x86 keeps on making decent progress, I don't see why Sony and MS would feel the urge to make transition to ARM unless they are motivated to make portable console like Nintendo.
Would likely be a hard sell considering Steam Deck and the likes currently sell on being able to play the vast library of Windows x86 games. Once a manufacturer manages to extract Apple Rosetta 2 like performance (implying ARM cores capable of handling x86 memory models in hardware) that may change.In that case perhaps portables like the Steam Deck might switch over?
Will there come a day when consoles like PlayStation and XBox use ARM CPUs?
Absolutely, the money is in the games themselves and licensing the right to publish games on the platform.The margins on console SoCs seem pretty low. That's a major factor in whether anyone would want to commit the time and money necessary to sell hardware to that sector. It's always easier to try to sell something you've already developed. In AMD's case, they seem to put more time and effort into their console offerings than, say, NV who just peddled Tegra X1 to Nintendo (for example).
If any of the console/handheld market tries to go to another vendor - notably an ARM vendor - they'll have to redo their entire development toolchain and then they'll have to start buying existing off-the-shelf solutions which may or may not come at a price/performance mark that is desirable compared to whatever AMD's embedded/console division plans on selling to them next.
The benefits of aligning to PC hardware (and games made for it) make the platform more attractive to devs, it's the smarter thing to do for now I guess.Wouldn't rule it out eventually but also seems like they are willing to stick with AMD/x86 for awhile.
Because Apple doesn't need it. App store where games dominate is already much bigger than the whole of the console gaming market.This is why I am somewhat confused why Apple never went down this road
Never underestimate the limits of corporate greed - if they think they can make more they will go there regardless.Because Apple doesn't need it. App store where games dominate is already much bigger than the whole of the console gaming market.
The benefits of aligning to PC hardware (and games made for it) make the platform more attractive to devs, it's the smarter thing to do for now I guess.
Apple already owns one of the biggest gaming platforms out there.This is why I am somewhat confused why Apple never went down this road, as they already have that closed ecosystem thinking down well - it's no great jump from there to consoles, especially now they have scaled up their GPUs.
Devs have already been doing that for years with Switch, which is probably the first Nintendo console in a while that has attracted serious third party game devs to their platform, and the first ARM based wall powered console in docked mode.Developers could port their stuff to ARM, but they would need a reason to, and thus far there isn’t any incentive.
What do ARM based streaming devices like Amazon FireTV or Google Chromecast with Google TV (aka Android TV Chromecast) use then?No ARM64 widevine support means low resolution netflix/max/disney/<insert platform here> streaming at low bitrates.
This is why I am somewhat confused why Apple never went down this road, as they already have that closed ecosystem thinking down well - it's no great jump from there to consoles, especially now they have scaled up their GPUs.
Apple can skimp on specs and still easily compete with Switch 2, at least on raw grunt with GPU if not feature completeness.Apple is too much like Nintendo - they want a premium for their hardware on top of app store sales. The console/handheld gaming market probably doesn't have room for another Nintendo. Plus Nintendo gets away with it by skimping on the specs which is something Apple would only do on specific areas if they're being historically consistent.
Just keep in mind that up until now, Nintendo has been selling Tegra X1 (a very slightly die shrunk one more-recently) to its customers. That thing is ancient and was never great to begin with. The cost per unit has got to be in the basement for them. What do you suppose the BoM is on a Switch in 2023?Apple can skimp on specs and still easily compete with Switch 2, at least on raw grunt with GPU if not feature completeness.
Don't laugh, Apple is already doing just that. It's the Apple TV boxes and the Apple Arcade service. Don't expect them to do more than that.Never underestimate the limits of corporate greed - if they think they can make more they will go there regardless.
You can strike the "one of" part, it's easily the biggest any way you look at it, both size and growth wise.Apple already owns one of the biggest gaming platforms out there.
Biggest yes, but full of mostly useless slag and old game ports, just like Google's Play Store.You can strike the "one of" part, it's easily the biggest any way you look at it, both size and growth wise.
You yourself were writing of corporate greed. Why would such a company care about the types or quality of games? It's the money that counts for them, and they got the for them biggest moneymaking gaming platform there is. There is no way up as they already are at the peak. Everything else they can do there is philanthropy at best and waste of money at worst.Biggest yes, but full of mostly useless slag and old game ports, just like Google's Play Store.
Niche of a niche in a niche. The repeated mention of Tomb Raider in benchmarks while nobody plays that anymore is already a running gag on the Windows x86 side, don't take it seriously suddenly once that switches side to MacOS.The emphasis that Apple put on certain games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider running on ARM Mac makes me think that they aren't exactly happy about that caveat though.
Tim Cook:Everything else they can do there is philanthropy at best and waste of money at worst.
Biggest yes, but full of mostly useless slag and old game ports, just like Google's Play Store.
The emphasis that Apple put on certain games like Shadow of the Tomb Raider running on ARM Mac makes me think that they aren't exactly happy about that caveat though.
Arm's earlier ~7% GB6 uplift seems to have been measured with GB6.0. The latest testing is now with GB6.1+ and Arm had a major IPC uplift this year: +10% IPC uplift. That's stellar cadence.
Percentages are normalized to the X3.
Arm's Cortex-X4, in GB6 IPC, is really closing the gap vs Apple P-cores that, on average, have achieved very low IPC uplifts since 2020.
- Apple A17 Pro - 774 pts / GHz (3.78 GHz / 2,926 pts) - 121.1%
- Qualcomm SDXE / Oryon - 750 pts / GHz (4.30 GHz / 3,227 pts) - 117.4%
- Qualcomm SD8G3 / Arm Cortex-X4 - 706 pts / GHz (3.30 GHz / 2,329 pts) - 110.5%
- Qualcomm SD8G2 / Arm Cortex-X3 - 639 pts / GHz (3.36 GHz / 2,146 pts) - 100.0%
As we talked about in the Qualcomm Oryon threads, Oryon was delayed so long + Arm executed so consistently that the Cortex-X4 (devices launching 7+ months before Oryon devices) achieves 94% of the Oryon IPC. We've been waiting 3+ years for NUVIA's Phoenix uArch and it's now coming out that Arm's IPC was just right behind it all along.
That is incredible.