According to a number of sources Tegra 3 beats it...
http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/new-ipad-3-a5x-vs-tegra-3-video-19-03-2012/
I'm talking about the GPU, the SGX543MP4.
According to a number of sources Tegra 3 beats it...
http://www.geeky-gadgets.com/new-ipad-3-a5x-vs-tegra-3-video-19-03-2012/
This doesn't really make all that much sense to me. To enable this model, the hypothetical Apple TV would have to include somewhat high-end PC hardware, exclusively for the "premium" games, while all the other functionality could be handled easily by one low-cost ARM SoC. Is that really worth it for Apple?Let me tell you what is going to happen.
The television itself will be designed by Apple to allow for everything to be done without having to have lots of other boxes connected and sitting underneath. Tv programmes, films and music will be available in a similar way to the Apple TV device, albeit improved.
With regards to gaming, they will allow access to the app store via the tv, with existing applications able to run as is. This will form the the part of the gaming experience handled directly by Apple, nothing more. You will, of course, need to purchase an iPhone, iPod touch or iPad and link it up to be able the play the games as the primary tv interface will be using Siri.
Where valve will be involved is in the form of a 'premium' games provider, accessible as an application like any other. They will allow people to play more traditional games via steam but allowing it will be the extent of Apples involvement. They will also allow valve to link up a more traditional controller to play these games, but this will be designed and sold by valve, not apple.
He also said that the PS3 was a disgrace and that Valve would never touch it again after The Orange Box debacle.
He also said that Apple weren't doing shit for gaming and his products wouldn't ever end up on the Mac.
Etc.
Etc.
This doesn't really make all that much sense to me. To enable this model, the hypothetical Apple TV would have to include somewhat high-end PC hardware, exclusively for the "premium" games, while all the other functionality could be handled easily by one low-cost ARM SoC. Is that really worth it for Apple?
But it's not as good as the Vita or new iPad's GPU. And it can't be upgraded by an accessory, unlike your issues with SD readers and HDMI.
I'm sorry but are you compare Tegra 3, a CPU with Apple's GPU? There's a reason why there's a different letter before the 'PU' part...
Yup. It's just a way of applying pressure on someone to change their ways.
Maybe do some research before calling someone a liar?
http://www.cellular-news.com/story/21622.php
IDG is the go to source on sales of devices such as mobile phones.
Good. More competition, the better.
The worst possible manufacturer enters the console business!
I'll be very catious of this one if it's true, maybe Valve can make it work. Maybe.
I'm sorry but are you compare Tegra 3, a CPU with Apple's GPU? There's a reason why there's a different letter before the 'PU' part...
Oh yeah? Is increasing development costs/risk even further, when they are already at a hazardous level, a good thing? There is only so much money that consumers are willing to spend on video games, especially given the current financial climate, so it is anything but a given that the creation of more competition will grow the market.
Just my opinion but I can't see this being another iphone. Video games consoles just don't seem to be the fashion accessories that mobile phones/fancy tablets are.
Are you aware that the Tegra 3 like the A5X are SoC? Which means they include both the CPU and GPU.
How much were sold in 2006? I'm not an expert on console sales but 26 million sounds about right to me.cool, that could be true in that case. Still, he's a liar for saying only 26 million consoles were sold in 2006.
yay, because I would just love to buy my video games from itunes.
Google/Sony partnership
4. Both companies enjoy success and money.
To pay for an adapter that could easily be included? I can't wait to see accessory prices for an Apple console...
I am, but comparing like for like should be the case. Obviously both CPUs come with their own GPUs but simply saying that Tegra 3 is not as poweful as the new iPad GPU is not comparing like for like.
yeah, you might have to pay $60 for controllers and $100 for Hard Drives. Crazy.
Apple is working on a television set with an iTunes-integrated touch screen remote and Siri-like voice command technology.
How much were sold in 2006? I'm not an expert on console sales but 26 million sounds about right to me.
Well that's the question, would they change? I don't see how you can have a game console and it not be a closed platform.
No discussion on DD only console. I am surprised gaf.
How much were sold in 2006? I'm not an expert on console sales but 26 million sounds about right to me.
But you do realize that we are discussing gaming, right? Which one would be more powerful for gaming as that is what the whole discussion is about.
No discussion on DD only console. I am surprised gaf.
Yup. It's just a way of applying pressure on someone to change their ways.
What if the games were streamed just like what the Apple TV does with shows and movies? Like Apple's version of OnLive but with Valve's Library?
There is only one thing that makes me pause and wonder if Apple can have success in the video game industry.
All of there most successful products are insanely portable.
iPods, iPhones, iPads, MacBooks.
All of those are portable and easy to bring anywhere because of their design.
A console is out of this element, as is the rumored television.
Is Apple any different since Steve Jobs has passed? I mean, are they showing signs of doing things he probably never would have?
Thing better have a massive hard drive
I dont believe it.
How are they going to do a "kinect like system" when everybody hates it, and MS prolly owns all the patents?
Beyond that, it would be a failure anyway since it sounds like a weak piece of crap.
Apple has never been a fit for the games business: Cornerstones of (core, console) gaming:
Lots of hardware losses, razor/blade model, hot, noisy, powerful hardware. Appealing to the younger male demographic.
Apple hates all of those things. Apple doesn't sell hardware they arent making a huge profit on, which is impossible if you want to play in the traditional console space. They also appeal to women first/
Ugh. Somehow I didn't even think of this.
So I have to buy a TV to get the console? Yeah, this will fly off shelves.
Handhelds are not considered game consoles.Considering, X360 which launched in 2005 sold around 7-10 mil units in its first year (if I remember correctly) the number is absurdly low. You also have the DS which started selling around 15-20 millions per year after the first 2 years of its life (DS was launched in 2004). Add to that you still had ps2 which was a beast (and even now sells 6 million units a year), PS3 and Wii launch that year and PSP still being relevant. No way only 26 million units of all consoles were sold.
I was comparing the Tegra 3 GPU to the iPad's GPU.I get your point, I was simply pointing out that you can't compare a CPU to GPU. Also a powerful enough CPU could help a shitty GPU (case in point: PS3).
You mean the highest specced machine available for the money? Why would that be a bad thing?
So I have to buy a TV to get the console? Yeah, this will fly off shelves.
If the TV set has a Retina display, that could attract the hardcore gamers.
Nintendo can be sustained by their IPs.