It's not even a rumor (some guy saying he heard it from an official source), it's speculation.
Speculation from Merril Lynch of Japan based on a study. I'll take that any day over EGM, GamePro, Game Informer and Nintendo Power.
The only confirmed consoles to ever have sold at a loss in recent times are the Saturn, the Dreamcast, and the Xbox.
I'll go the other way. Gamecube is the only confirmed system to sell at a profit. Sony develops their own chips so they can hide costs in R+D. Fabs cost billions of dollars.
Console makers only take in $5-10 per third party game sold. There isn't a chance in hell that they'd bet the farm on selling 10 games for every PS3 sold.
You forgot to mention First party games. How much do they make on those? Please look up blade and razor business theory.
unless you're Microsoft and can get away with announcing to your stock holders that you're going to take a $1 billion loss on a product line, no console made by a publicly traded company will ever ship at a loss greater than can be recovered by the sale of three games. And if some company did do that, they would have that info public in a report to their stock holders.
Now you get my first post. Good Luck Sony! Your stock is going to tank even more soon.
Its just a rumor but pretty standard fare for a company to lose money selling the system and making money on the games. Microsoft lost a ton of money trying to shove the Xbox down our throats.
How often do you read slashdot? Nintendo has low system sales, its the kiddy system, psp is better than nintendo ds, the revolution controller sucks, most games are based on old out-dated franchies (mario, zelda, etc.), nintendo has no on-line games, etc. These are things I've read on here over and over again. Its funny that Sony just re-organized their company and Microsoft lost 4 billon dollars on Xbox. Nintendo has a lot of money in the bank. I like the name of Nintendo's next system. Revolution.
If you read the Intel lawsuit, AMD claims Intel is holding up the ratification of the DDR3 standard. I am surprised AMD doesn't go with DDR500 or 600 for now and go with DDR3 later on since Intel made another memory mistake going with DDR2 (i.e. RAMBUS).
"Both companies have been in a tight race to deliver the processors since AMD engineers realized that simply ratcheting up the clock speed of single-core chips was creating too much heat and not producing the same improvements seen in previous models."
I did make it up based on things I've read on the web. Look at the original post. The guy was wondering what was the limit and that is my opinion. I've seen pictures of a dual core Athlon chip running at 2 ghz with 1 MB cache for each core. Imagine what they will have in two years. If you want sources, go to Google and type in AMD dual core.
I'm glad you already have that chip designed. I would call Intel or AMD because they will probably want to hire you. I understand that a dual core chip won't be twice as fast but I stated the limit of a single core chip would probably be 3 ghz. 3 X 2 = 6. So I subtracted 1 ghz but you also have to add speed increases for bigger caches (2 or 4MB) and 64-bit.
"Intel continued to use the MHz race because the public was on board" and in other news people still eat at McDonalds. Its called marketing. 65nm??? Didn't 90nm just come out and everybody had trouble switching to it? AMD is winning because their 90nm chips are faster and run cooler. Intel is losing because their 90nm are slower and run hotter.
Several years late? Why? Cause they released the spec for AMD64 a few years ago? It was well planned out and released on time. Intel has switched socket sizes so many times its not even funny. If you did your research without being biased you would know that Socket 754 is going to be supported for at least another year. Isn't Intel switching sockets again? Socket T or LGA 775? Are those even gonna be 64-bit? Probably have to buy DDR2 also.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not even a rumor (some guy saying he heard it from an official source), it's speculation.
Speculation from Merril Lynch of Japan based on a study. I'll take that any day over EGM, GamePro, Game Informer and Nintendo Power.
The only confirmed consoles to ever have sold at a loss in recent times are the Saturn, the Dreamcast, and the Xbox.
I'll go the other way. Gamecube is the only confirmed system to sell at a profit. Sony develops their own chips so they can hide costs in R+D. Fabs cost billions of dollars.
Console makers only take in $5-10 per third party game sold. There isn't a chance in hell that they'd bet the farm on selling 10 games for every PS3 sold.
You forgot to mention First party games. How much do they make on those? Please look up blade and razor business theory.
unless you're Microsoft and can get away with announcing to your stock holders that you're going to take a $1 billion loss on a product line, no console made by a publicly traded company will ever ship at a loss greater than can be recovered by the sale of three games. And if some company did do that, they would have that info public in a report to their stock holders.
Now you get my first post. Good Luck Sony! Your stock is going to tank even more soon.
http://games.techwhack.com/148/sony-playstation-3- rumors-say-sony-might-lose-usd-100-on-each-unit/
Its just a rumor but pretty standard fare for a company to lose money selling the system and making money on the games. Microsoft lost a ton of money trying to shove the Xbox down our throats.
And now Sony is going to sell a couple million Playstation 3's at a loss? Good luck.
How often do you read slashdot? Nintendo has low system sales, its the kiddy system, psp is better than nintendo ds, the revolution controller sucks, most games are based on old out-dated franchies (mario, zelda, etc.), nintendo has no on-line games, etc. These are things I've read on here over and over again.
Its funny that Sony just re-organized their company and Microsoft lost 4 billon dollars on Xbox. Nintendo has a lot of money in the bank. I like the name of Nintendo's next system. Revolution.
Shout out to my boy MC Chris!
If you read the Intel lawsuit, AMD claims Intel is holding up the ratification of the DDR3 standard. I am surprised AMD doesn't go with DDR500 or 600 for now and go with DDR3 later on since Intel made another memory mistake going with DDR2 (i.e. RAMBUS).
Only on Slashdot
...and it's STILL compiling!
This is a troll:
I've had AMD64 Gentoo running for over a year.
But this is funny, not redundant or a troll:
I love this type of comment everytime a Gentoo story comes up. Isn't Linux capable of multi-tasking?
The floppy drive was pretty expensive. I always wondered what the markup was. Probably around 500%.
The same year as CNN. What a coincidence!
You obviously missed the last couple elections then.
The article needs to be changes in one way:
"Both companies have been in a tight race to deliver the processors since AMD engineers realized that simply ratcheting up the clock speed of single-core chips was creating too much heat and not producing the same improvements seen in previous models."
Tom's Hardware
Yawn. Nothing to see here. Move along.
Rar Rar Rar Rar!
See which product comes out first:
Intel Dual Core chips
or
ATI X850 XT PE
Wow. Are LCD's the new bling bling?
I did make it up based on things I've read on the web. Look at the original post. The guy was wondering what was the limit and that is my opinion. I've seen pictures of a dual core Athlon chip running at 2 ghz with 1 MB cache for each core. Imagine what they will have in two years. If you want sources, go to Google and type in AMD dual core.
I'm glad you already have that chip designed. I would call Intel or AMD because they will probably want to hire you. I understand that a dual core chip won't be twice as fast but I stated the limit of a single core chip would probably be 3 ghz. 3 X 2 = 6. So I subtracted 1 ghz but you also have to add speed increases for bigger caches (2 or 4MB) and 64-bit.
AMD will probably max out at 3 ghz with this technology, but then they will introduce dual core which should be around 5 ghz.
"Intel continued to use the MHz race because the public was on board" and in other news people still eat at McDonalds. Its called marketing. 65nm??? Didn't 90nm just come out and everybody had trouble switching to it? AMD is winning because their 90nm chips are faster and run cooler. Intel is losing because their 90nm are slower and run hotter.
Benchmark and real world are two different places.
Unfairenheit 9/11
Several years late? Why? Cause they released the spec for AMD64 a few years ago? It was well planned out and released on time. Intel has switched socket sizes so many times its not even funny. If you did your research without being biased you would know that Socket 754 is going to be supported for at least another year. Isn't Intel switching sockets again? Socket T or LGA 775? Are those even gonna be 64-bit? Probably have to buy DDR2 also.
If your talking about the Van's Hardware review, please find a fair review not done by an AMD fanboy.