Its all a bit silly honestly i think IGN is a little more accurate what's the point in putting an 8 core into a gaming console, and at that a weak Amd one?
i think 8 core low power cpu would be fine for driving multiple inputs e.g. party games, online multiplayer games, better power efficiency than amd's powerhogging cpus, cheap to produce in volumes, easier to customize and so on. i don't think a 28nm octocore would be that weak. weaker than high end atom or ivb pentium in per-core perf? may be.. impossible to know without cpu benches.
Also whats the point on going x86 did Amd have them do that for part of a deal(maybe some special price) or something maybe to make ports to the PC more easier?
i am guessing hsa will help with coding. just because they use x86 instructions doesn't mean porting would be easy. it really depends on how sony, ms customize the hardwares.
Also by having the PS4 and xbox 720 being x86 does that make it harder to port a game to the Wii U(IBM CPU)?
If anyone even bothered to read what i said what do you guys think should be in the consoles(in all seriousness)?
from what i've read, 8 core jaguar based cpu with 7970 level gpu with gpu switching, hybrid cfx. i've started to think if these are too powerful for consoles, i mean 8 core cpu with top end gfx card is an upper mid-range gaming pc.
To keep consoles around 400$ what is the smartest choice of hardware to use?
if they use jaguar, then the cpu choice is fine. but i think using a tahiti gpu may drive up costs, pitcairn would be better. no ssd or small boot drive with 32-64 gb. no hdd. decent cooling should keep the cost low. i personally think that configuring a $400 pc with low-cost, low-power apu with pitcairn gpu, 4gb ram is possible. i haven't tried to do that myself, though.
Also every single thing i said is a question