PS6 rumor: Intel reportedly rejected for the next-gen console — here's why | Mashable.
PS6 rumor: Intel reportedly rejected for the next-gen console — here's why
 |
| Credit: Kiyoshi Ota/Bloomberg via Getty Images |
Sony’s PS5 Pro announcement didn’t exactly land with a bang — more like a fizzle. With a lukewarm reception from potential buyers, it’s clear the focus is already shifting to what PS56 could bring to the table.
According to a report from Reuters, AMD is, once again, stepping up to design the next-gen chip for Sony’s upcoming console.
An exclusive report revealed why AMD was chosen over Intel to design the chip for Sony’s upcoming PS6. The key reason? Backward compatibility. Sources close to the decision revealed that ensuring a seamless gaming experience between the PS6 and its predecessor was a top priority for Sony — something the company doesn’t want to fumble after past missteps.
Flashback to 2013: When the PS4 dropped, the lack of native backward compatibility with the PS3 was a massive disappointment for fans. Sony addressed this with the PS5 — and it looks like the company is determined to maintain that goodwill moving forward.
While the AMD deal feels fresh, insiders shared with Reuters that the agreement has been in place since at least 2022. Tensions between Sony and Intel reportedly stemmed from disputes over profit-sharing, with Intel wanting a bigger cut per chip sold. When asked about these negotiations, an Intel spokesperson declined to comment on discussions with Sony, but pushed back against the narrative that Intel "failed" to win the contract.
A long-term deal with Sony could have funneled upwards of $30 billion into Intel’s coffers, had it gone through. But in the end, AMD’s established relationship with Sony — and its experience designing chips for Microsoft’s Xbox — likely made it an easy decision for Sony to stick with the safer bet.
Topics Gaming PlayStation
How about good games first
ReplyDeleteIsn’t basically the same arch? X86-64?
ReplyDeleteScrew BC. Make the console as cheap as possible instead. Don't want another expensive gen
ReplyDeletepreviously AMD overheated...but now they resolved it. so no issues.
ReplyDeleteBecause people don't want to pay $5000 for a console?
ReplyDeleteMaybe Xbox will get Intel and Qualcomm.
ReplyDeleteWhy Intel AND Qualcomm?
DeleteIntel would replace AMD as the console and rather than use AMD ryzen embedded they use Qualcomm arm handheld. Sony sticks with amd for both. This is a surface reference design for other oem consoles to add extra power. It may also get some steam and epic games sandboxed pc support compatible with Xbox alongside console versions so you can play the nonconsole version of Sony games on Xbox
DeleteI don't see why they would use Arm ISA for the handheld instead of sticking to x86 ISA for both. That's unnecessary complexity for the both Sony and the developers.
DeleteHad they chosen Intel, they probably would have used Intel for handhelds too.
They have the woa emulation infrastructure that Sony doesnt have. This arm handheld can run series s but the Sony one will only run ps5 games patched by devs to downgrade for it. Sony needs to depend more on hardware like solution than the software so they need the familiarity of amd to make that easier plus they don't have a reference design or proton gaming. This may be the last time Sony has a midgen refresh because devs aren't going to want to support 3 skus 2 has already been too much for them and there's no competition this time because Xbox is gonna Jumpstart one to two years. That's why they think they can get away with this price their profit margin is almost tripled with this mode model.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSince 2021, Gelsinger has been Intel's CEO, but failures seem to keep coming.
No wonder he felt embarrassed about being one of the lowest-paid CEOs in the industry and demanded a 45% raise while laying off tens of thousands.
Dump Pat Gelsinger.
This all seems more like Sony tried to leverage Intel interest in order to get better pricing from AMD rather than any realistic opportunity for Intel to win this business.
DeleteWould the architecture be so different from an AMD chip to an Intel proc? They’re still x86 processors, no?
DeleteThey mentioned broadcom. 😂😂😂 Like huh? Broadcom makes processors for gaming?
First they lost Apple's chip business, now Sony's PlayStation. In 2020, Intel takes Ls.
ReplyDeleteIntel having a rough go lately.
ReplyDeleteIntel would have had to undercut AMD to get Sony to sacrifice backwards compatibility.
ReplyDeleteFrom past experience, Sony would have binned previous-gen compatibility for the right price.
Saw another post about the same information. Main reason cited is backward compatibility.
ReplyDeleteSelecting intel for ps6 and losing backward compatibility would be shooting themselves in the foot. Not to mention that intel is just a sinking ship right now anyway.
Greed...
ReplyDelete… and AMD won. Love it. My impression is that they won the next Xbox as well.
ReplyDeleteWho knows, tho? Xbox division is full to the brim with idiots so they may very well go with intel.
DeleteYup, remember when it became news that AMD was sporting every single prototype of the original XBox back then, only to be left taken aback at the very presentation, when Microsoft sneakingly closed a deal with Intel at the very last minute?
DeleteIt was Intel basically bribing Microsoft royally to oust AMD and then MS brought their console with a Intel-CPU instead.
The AMD-engineers which were working on their prototypes with Microsoft sitting in the very front-row, knew actually not a thing about any secret Intel-deal and how it cost AMD the original XBox … Until it was revealed at the official. presentation.
It was a really shitty move by both MS and Intel, to eff them over while AMD brought all the engineering and testing, only to be kicked to the curb by Microsoft's mean yet pricy chip on their shoulder called Intel.
Who knows, maybe this time it's karma who blinded them with greed again with Sony … Only to double down on Microsoft?
So I wouldn't be too sure of the XBox for AMD yet, as MS is known to make shady last-minute moves when bribed enough.
"A dispute over how much profit Intel stood to take from each chip sold to the Japanese electronics giant blocked Intel from settling on the price with Sony, according to two of the sources. Instead, rival AMD landed the contract through a competitive bidding process that eliminated others such as Broadcom, until only Intel and AMD remained."
ReplyDeleteIn what world does sony chose Broadcom. Lol
DeleteAMD should always keep winning bc they got the better tech
ReplyDeleteWho would believe Intel to be able delivery on time when they can't fab their own chip? Until they be able to move off TMSC then Intel's Foundery will have customer.
ReplyDeleteVery satisfying to see Intel lose out to AMD
ReplyDeleteMaybe karma who blinded them with greed again with Sony here … Only to double down on Microsoft!
DeleteAs back then Intel ousted AMD also at the last minute at Microsoft by bribing them royally to go with Intel – AMD was sporting every single prototype of the original XBox back then, only to be left taken aback at the very presentation, when Microsoft behind AMD's back sneakingly closed a deal with Intel at the very last minute.
Since with Sony's Playstation now, that's basically their Apple-deal 2.0 …
Remember how Intel back then refused to manufacture Apple the iPhone-SoC? As the last time that happened (refusing a long-term deal over minuscule margins), was when they told Apple to go kick some rocks over the margins already, and refused to deliver Apple their iPhone-SoC back in 2007 – With that short-sighted move, Intel single-handedly spawned the ARM-universe as we know it today and gave live to the plethora of ARM-powerhouses with the several multi-billion market-heavyweights like Qualcomm, MediaTek, Broadcom, Samsung and others and a gigantic market in itself Intel has still none whatsoever bearing in even over a decade later.
Article says deal is worth 30B. Anyone compare this to the PS5 deal? How much larger is it?
ReplyDeleteYou can pretty much ignore that number. A huge chunk of that AMD will never see as they're revenue that would have gone to TSMC. It's just a thrown out number that could also include the network components and discounts in the mix throughout the lifespan of a console.
DeleteThere is no way intel would have made 30b off this unless the ps6/7 costs 1k.
DeleteJust got this one in my feed. Very interesting read.
ReplyDeleteHow the hell could Broadcom or Intel even produce a competitive chip to AMD and nvidia? Intel could produce something that would have a good CPU in it and play games... but compete with AMD? I highly doubt they could do it given how poorly their ARC GPUs perform
ReplyDeleteBroadcom being in the running is just stupid. I can't believe Sony even thought of trying to use them given their GPUs are AFAIK just a shitty older version of AMDs GCN tech designed for mobile (Adreno). I highly doubt Broadcom could even produce something that competes with regular PS5
I failed to see how the deal with Sony could generate $30 billion. Even if the projected sell of PS6 at 100m unit that would put the price for each PS6 chip at 300$. That is triple the price of the chip in PS4.
ReplyDeleteIs just a sensational propaganda since Intel is doing bad this article will generate views.
DeleteOn the other hand Intel popular view is deteriorating fast I think they should have taken this deal even if it hurts their foundries revenue long term.
In my opinion, if the bidding rumors are accurate, the only thing stopping Intel from accepting the deal is it could cause them bleeding money. They might not be able to afford it right now. Otherwise, even with a minimal profit margin, they'd likely take such a high-profile deal to boost everyone's confidence.
Delete"That is triple the price of the chip in PS4."
DeleteHas sony disclosed how much they're paying amd for the chips?
AFAIK they never disclosed that but multiple article at the time estimate the price at that. The PS4 chip is very weak in PC standard and buying directly from AMD in large quantity will have a huge discount so I think that not very unlikely.
DeleteLooking at the price of PS5 Pro, I think they should sell them for $600 each.
DeleteBased on the negative reaction to the PS5 Pro's price, I think that the base model of the next-gen console (presumably the PS6) is unlikely to exceed $500. If priced at $600, it would likely struggle to reach sales of 100 million units, forcing the price of each PS6 chip up to achieve the projected $30 billion revenue mention in the article.
DeleteYeah I was being sarcastic. I doubt a $700 console could sell well.
DeleteThe launch PS3 was $900 in 2024 money selling 600,000, people have just been ever so slowly paid less and less every year vs inflation.
DeleteI honestly don't think Sony is gouging, but feels like it because everyone else is algorithmically squeezing us to pay more, earn less.
PS3's launch price was $500, and back in 2006, I doubt you could build a gaming PC that could run AAA games with that much money. But in 2024, $300 with used parts gets you pretty far, and $500 gets you a 1080p 60+ fps gaming PC with all new parts. Hell, with like $200 worth of used parts or even less if youre smart/lucky, you could build a 720p 60 fps gaming PC.
DeleteHence $700 for a 30 fps console in 2024 is ridiculous. PC hardware is cheaper than ever, and consoles failed to keep up. Save for Nintendo switch, consoles are not a cheaper alternative to PC gaming like it always used to anymore.
$500 for the 20gb in 2006 = $778 in 2024 US dollars. You have to understand that the value of the dollar decreases over time. PC's had jumped ahead of consoles by then, and pc parts were much more affordable then compared to now. I know, I built then. Motherboards used to cost $100 and now they're $300. 30FPS then was good. It's all relative. People are just getting paid less and charged more for other stuff.
DeleteWord of advice, never think of money the same year to year. Always know it's worth less now then it was when you thought it was good.
Ps. The PS3 used a mid range Nvidia card for the time.
Delete
DeleteI guess you're right, building a gaming PC in 2006 wasn't expensive. I was browsing Anandtech's 2006 publications. AMD Semprons were under $100, budget motherboards were as cheap as $67 (biostar crap of course), the $100 nvidia 7600 GS GPU ran Oblivion at 45 fps. The flagship dual core was $1000, but we didn't need that to game. I'm quite surprised actually. Of course PCs are even cheaper today and PC games are more well optimized than ever though, you could run any AAA game you want on a scrapyard Xeon + RX 470 PC for $100, but still, PC gaming in 2006 was much more affordable than i thought.
But looking back, I was only 11 in 2006, and back then PCs were considered some sort of luxury items. Every kid gamed on PS1 or PS2 with pirated discs. The PS2 had a $130 price tag in 2006 and the PS1 was pretty much chump change next to it. The PS3 didn't really sell that much until the cheaper slim model came out, and the PS2 still outsold it by twice as many units. PSP met the same fate when contended with the NDS.
So I guess even without factoring the price of PC components, $700 for a console is ridiculous now as it was back then. The PS3 was ridiculed for being so expensive. And now with all the influencers on youtube telling people to buy a PC, consoles would have a harder time to compete. But, they still sell somehow. And Xbox series S barely sells despite being much cheaper than the PS5.
I guess brand recognition moves more units than the hardware itself. Maybe that's how the 700 dollar PS5 Pro will sell.
DeleteYeah, it’s all kind of relative but i just wanted to highlight that they still sold 600k units at that price, confortable and wealthy people will drop money but comparatively the PS5 pro is not a crucial upgrade compared with the first blu ray drives available to consumers in 2006. I would go the pc route because at least a PC’s can also be used to earn money or be creative.
My point is the price isn’t outrageous, just hard to swallow for some fps and no drive, but trend wise it’s not crazy looking at other consumer items raising 3-6% per year but people only getting 1.5% wage increases a year saying “things are tough” when they made 40% more in profit that year. The country and it’s corporations are just messed up greedy rn on all sides. I see some gamers exercising their voices and cool dudes like steve at GN doing expose’s and being a real journalist. It’s not totally bleak. Maybe we can make Sony drop prices by controlling the market, that is if the comfy people care enough to help haha
Definitely not 30 billion but I assume a deal with Sony means it's a very high chance they could lock in a deal with Microsoft too since both PS4/XB1 and PS5/XSX uses AMD.
DeleteAMD getting both contracts back in PS4 and Xbox One era was basically what saved them from bankruptcy even though the margins were absolute trash.
DeleteAMD is not just selling chips they already have, SONY is using production lines for a specific product that they don’t sell outside of the PS5 and now even more specifically the PS5 pro, lines they could use for something else for general products and not only for the ps5 pro, also I bet a lot that SONY is also buying the new AI based upscaling they are developing for the ps5 pro. So yes, it also cost more for SONY per chip to ask AMD to build custom chips only for them and the ps6. Don’t forget that also have to ship custom chips to Microsoft too.
DeleteSo yeah I bet it cost extra to SONY to get those chips, even if they are ZEN2 based.
And remember that they always sell consoles at loss, they recover cost from game sales. I can only imagine how much AMD asked to Sony for that pro model if they decided to sell it at 800 in Europe without a disc player x).
Nope the PS4 almost profitable from day 1, same as PS5. Only PS3 sold at a huge lost at the beginning and at the end of its life the cost of manufaturing a PS3 also drop dramatically. Normally the cost of a CPU+GPU hover around 30% at most in a console.
Delete(https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/cpus/amds-gaming-revenue-falls-59-but-company-still-posts-a-9-year-over-year-revenue-increase) The revenue from the closest quarter only 650m across Radeon, Xbox, Playstation. Assume that PS take 50% percent of that that would be 300m. Sony sell around 3m console last quarter so that put the price of a chip in PS5 around 100$ inline with the PS4
There are royalties involved. The buck doesn't stop at the chip.
DeleteAnother Reuters hit job from the same guy.
ReplyDeleteIt seems to be spread on multiple sources for some reason. Ill just keep my head down and working (with the occasional application sent out to other companies...)
DeleteIntel made the processor for the original Xbox but it made such small margins that Intel got out of that business. Its a steady but small margin business.
ReplyDelete"Its a steady but small margin business."
DeleteIt does get your GPUs in the hands of developers though. If Intel was serious about gaming graphics they'd do what it takes to land a console contract.
It's not like console devs work directly with the hardware.............they still go through some sort of API. Honestly, it would make sense for them all to just support Vulkan API.
Delete100M units at 300 dollars for a pretty large APU probably means quite low margin for Intel.
ReplyDeleteIs it? How much does it cost to produce?
DeleteA 155H has a recommended consumer price of 500$, it’s a fairly OK laptop CPU with a good igpu. Intel probably sells this at 40-50% margin, so around 250-300$ to manufacture. PS6 will need a RPL like cpu with a fairly beefy GPU. AMD probably undercut them because Intel has fairly large GPUs that are not that performance efficient.
Deletehttps://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/sku/236847/intel-core-ultra-7-processor-155h-24m-cache-up-to-4-80-ghz.html
DeleteI very much doubt anyone actually buying those chips pays $500. The list price is for minimum batch size intel sells.
$250-300 sounds too much even if you account for some extra expenses for packaging. The compute die is about 70mm2, assuming fairly high defect rate they would get about 800 dies per wafer. Assuming high wafer price of $20000 that would make single compute die cost about $25. And that is probably the most expensive die in the package. I would guess it costs about $100 to make the CPU.
The thing is, for just the marginal cost it's pretty much as expensive to produce a cheap CPU as it is to produce expensive one. They pull high margins from expensive products and drastically lower margins from the cheaper chips, ending on average at the 40ish percent margin.
Yah well intel better get used to low margins. They are not in the position to turn down business. They need to start making some money to be able to pay for their capital intensive building and manufacturing.
DeleteDon't they actually still have a lot of cash reserves? Sounds like it's just the board and the big shareholders crying about share prices being down..............and for that reason they're willing to destroy the company.
DeleteRealistically given the incredible risk the first huge volume customer takes with Intel foundry they're probably looking at low margin or even losing money on the deal. Important thing is to land that customer and show that they can compete with TSMC, not the short term profit.
Delete"100M units at 300 dollars for a pretty large APU probably means quite low margin for Intel."
DeleteRadeon outside of rDNA 2 has largely been irrelevant within the PCMR community. Even rDNA 2 was irrelevant for anyone interested in DLSS or ray tracing performance.
Anyways, for AMD having consoles is a way to get their tech into the hands of developers. Which is actually a smart move when your marketshare is receding further than LeBron's hairline.
DeleteWhat matters more for Intel is fab occupancy and the ability to say, "Look, the world's biggest gaming company is a major customer of ours. Now, you guys should also outsource your manufacturing to us."
But, as usual, Calamity Pat screws things up yet again. 20A is yet another failed Intel node, which they've retrospectively portrayed as for "research". Also, nobody wants 18A - not even Intel themselves, who are fabbing Arrow Lake on TSMC.
So, Intel continue in the death spiral that started in 2012 when 14nm development was suddenly experiencing major issues...
It's a BS article. 100% Intel was probably brought to the table to see what they can offer. That's probably as far as it went.
ReplyDeleteI still remembers when Xbox was announced using a (at that time) prestige “Pentium III” processor yet it’s actually a Celeron in disguise(only half L2 cache compares to Pentium III.
ReplyDeleteWhat’s up with the flurry of hit pieces on INTC as soon as the stock price dropped below book value?
ReplyDeleteBags fumbled:
ReplyDeleteiphone
ipad
macbook
every game console since xbox
AI
GPU's seven times in a row
You forgot StrongArm. They were the #1 supplier of ARM chips and said “Nah, IA everywhere”
DeleteAlso, the Altera Stratix 10 FPGA, and LG's never-launched custom ARM mobile phone processor.
DeleteAlso first 64bit chip that would eventually replace x86 maybe, Itanium...
DeleteCome on Intel
They didn't really fumble iPhone and iPad IMO, as far as the cellular chips go, Apple probably intentionally screwed them over just to buy the IP.
DeleteI mean, intel has a huge OEM market to serve while AMD still lags at that. Their TSMC fab is busy producing Lunar Lake, Arrow Lake, and Gaudi, all of which have way higher profit margin than console CPUs. Unless Sony is fine with PS6 CPUs and iGPUs being produced in their 10nm fab, there's little reason for Intel to accept the contract. On the other hand, despite the low profit margin, it's an enticing proposition for AMD that lags in the OEM market.
ReplyDeleteI also think that it gives the brand more recognition and authority which is something that intel is currently lacking.
DeleteUnlike AMD who seem have a stake in majority of the games console market which a lot of people know about. So naturally when it comes to picking up a laptop or desktop, something stands out more because you’ve seen and know the brand.
You get far more brand recognition from being on nearly every laptop sold and dominating client than from being a console chip. Most gamers don't know what chips their consoles use and the consoles don't even have an AMD sticker.
DeleteIntel is living proof that having your sticker everywhere does nothing for brand recognition. You should apply for a job at Intel.
DeletePeople who care about technology and hardware will definitely know what components are powering their consoles and other devices. It’s not exactly rocket science.
Far more people are familiar with Intel than AMD.
DeleteMost gamers do not know the chips in their console. I'm sorry, but AMD doesn't gain much brand recognition by hiding their chips in a console. But they would get far more recognition if they could get their brand on the console.
AMD has had a pretty good resurgence in the PC and laptop segment, lots of laptops with AMD stickers around (well Ryzen actually).
DeleteJust hear me out
Delete"also think that it gives the brand more recognition and authority"
I'm not saying that OxM and platform wins/deals are the ultimate driving force behind their market and brand recognition, of course other things contribute towards that much more. I merely said that it contributes and gives more, which is undeniably true.
"People who care about technology and hardware will definitely know what components are powering their consoles and other devices."
DeleteYeah and the fact is that we are actually a pretty small minority............most humans just use technology without knowing or caring what's in it. Heck, I'm that way with cars - I don't know or care what horsepower or capacity my engine has, I just drive it.
"Most gamers don't know what chips their consoles use and the consoles don't even have an AMD sticker."
DeleteIn the past that was true, but these days AMD has their logo all over their gaming events, and console reveals.
Lol. This is an old news . Someone is paying Reuters to make these hit pieces to tank the stock price and do a forceful acquisition .
ReplyDeleteBroadcomm
DeleteMost probably .
DeleteThey're known to have a history of hostile takeovers by stock manipulation. Broadcomm is just pure evil
DeleteI am so sure I saw this news already in 2022 !? Is it just me?
ReplyDeleteId love to see an intel based xbox vs an amd based ps6
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteMore context:
The effort by Intel to win out over Advanced Micro Devices (AMD.O), opens new tab in a competitive bidding process to supply the design for the forthcoming PlayStation 6 chip and Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (2330.TW), opens new tab as the contract manufacturer would have amounted to billions of dollars of revenue and fabricating thousands of silicon wafers a month, two sources said.
A dispute over how much profit Intel stood to take from each chip sold to the Japanese electronics giant blocked Intel from settling on the price with Sony, according to two of the sources. Instead, rival AMD landed the contract through a competitive bidding process that eliminated others such as Broadcom (AVGO.O), opens new tab, until only Intel and AMD remained. Discussions between Sony and Intel took months in 2022, and included meetings between the two companies’ CEOs, dozens of engineers and executives.
In response to Reuters reporting about the PlayStation 6 talks and Intel's failure to win the business, an Intel spokesperson said: "We strongly disagree with this characterization but are not going to comment about any current or potential customer conversations. We have a very healthy customer pipeline across both our product and foundry business, and we are squarely focused on innovating to meet their needs."
Intel manufactures its own chips in the US. AMD manufactures its chips in Taiwan by TSMC.
ReplyDeleteAnother Broadcomm hitjob? They're serious about breaking Intel apart it seems.
ReplyDeleteReuters at it again... journalism really is dead
ReplyDeleteThis tracks, Intel started working on better FreeBSD support for their hardware a few years back. I did wonder at the time if they were vying for a PlayStation contract. After all with Intel dGPU there's now competition, with a pretty good CPU and pretty good dGPU from Intel.
ReplyDeleteOf course, Intel has floundered on the CPU part, since then.
Why makes $30 billion when you can make $0.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Fexclusive-how-intel-lost-the-sony-playstation-business-v0-yf9mnjgq06pd1.jpeg%3Fwidth%3D504%26format%3Dpjpg%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3D5efdabc54bb53cf8caf818335524009583f979e1
Would have been a death sentence to amd gaming division if Intel got the PS6.
ReplyDeleteTitle could've just been, "How Intel lost"
ReplyDeleteIf Intel won, it’d be named the PlayStation 6.00000013
ReplyDeleteAll the additional cooling required for Intel silicon would’ve made PS6 extremely bulky and expensive.
ReplyDeleteBackwards compatibility is the only real issue.
DeleteBulkier than the current one? Not possible.
DeleteI imagine it’ll require a EATX case with a dozen 240mm intake / exhaust fans and AIO coolers.
DeleteSo if Intel won the Sony console will be more than 700 dollars in future.
ReplyDeleteArticle by Max Cherney 🤔
ReplyDeleteYummmm wafers.
ReplyDeleteI like it how this confirms there's gonna be a PS6 (it wasn't likely there won't, but still) and backwards compability could also mean they won't abandon optical drives, neither.
ReplyDeleteAMD is clearly the way to go with these chip sets. They are killing it.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBackwards compatibility is a double edged sword though because it prolongs a generation. If the PS5 would've not been cmpatible with the PS4, the PS4 would long be dead.
Same here, the PS6 will probably be still compatible to the PS4 so keeping that old HW alive for even longer.
The idea that a PS6 would use Intel Arc graphics is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteLost would imply they ever had it.
ReplyDeleteSees Nvidia just beating everyone idk. Super hard to figure out.
ReplyDeleteIntel didn’t invest in OpenAI because they felt AI was over hyped or something. I mean there are some really dumbasses running that company.
ReplyDeleteI wish they would give a Intel NVIDIA combo a chance. Imagine a PS6 with powerful raytracing and physx capabilities 😍😍
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDeleteWell they plan consoles years in advance, and the PS5 came out almost 4 years ago now!
DeleteThe next generation R&D starts as soon as the current gen is shipped. Its a crazy long process.
DeletePS6 is still 4~ years out.
From company perspective, they start thinking about PS6 the moment PS5 is out on shelves. Probably even earlier. Building a console is a process that takes many years, and Sony doesn't employee dozens of engineers to do nothing. They best way to not fall behind is to always be ahead.
DeleteI mean, it says that they were negotiating with Intel in 2022. It makes sense that the PS6 would already be in the planning stages by then. I wouldn't expect the actual console for a few more years.
DeleteThere was talk about this when the PS4 was made for sure.
DeletePs4 was only 7 years long.. we've got at best 2 or 3 years left till the ps6👌🏽
DeleteNah 4 years. This gen will be a bit longer than usual.
Delete7 years for the full generation, yes, but you also have to consider the Pro as mid-generation upgrades had not really been a thing previously.
DeleteThere was a 4 year gap between the PS4 Pro and PS5 releases, so it wouldn't be a stretch to assume the PS5 Pro will have a similar lifespan.
Ps6 will cost over 1000€/$ and will become a console for the fringe enthusiasts anyway. 😅
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Deletejoke
DeleteSony went with AMD, and they're still unable to subsidize their new consoles, 😳
ReplyDeleteIntel had PlayStation business? News to me
ReplyDeleteMaybe glance at the article?
DeleteYou’re asking too much of Mashable.
DeleteNo but they apparently could have for the PS6.
Delete