> 1. Build the box: Take Panther Lake. Stick it in a boring little box that fits under the TV. No RGB. No gimmicks. Just raw performance in a console-size form factor.
All current console CPUs are custom silicon, eliminating bits they don't need an adding what they do need.
Likely taking Panther Lake as-is would be too expensive.
Not to mention that AMD likely has a much stronger semi-custom infrastructure (they've been doing it for over 10 years, and the PS4/Xbone chips helped to keep the company afloat during the FX years) plus an existing relationship with Valve. Intel doesn't have that, and they also don't have the objectively superior product that would convince vendors to switch.
I recently bought an MSI Claw A1M handheld gaming PC, because it was cheap. And the performance of the Core Ultra 5-135H is fine, and I think it can handle E33 at 1080p30 with upscaling, and anything else I'd want to play much better than that. But the battery life and power consumption isn't competitive with even the original Steam Deck, and we haven't seen an indication that Intel has anything to leapfrog AMD chips any time soon.
Intel is no longer in a position to sell at cost or as a loss-leader. 15-20 years ago, when it was dominant, it absolutely could have; it's not an option today.
I'm not asking them to waste money. I just think the profit they should take on this one is cultural relevance rather than cash (all of which they would get back, but just break even)
> 1. Build the box: Take Panther Lake. Stick it in a boring little box that fits under the TV. No RGB. No gimmicks. Just raw performance in a console-size form factor.
All current console CPUs are custom silicon, eliminating bits they don't need an adding what they do need.
Likely taking Panther Lake as-is would be too expensive.
Not to mention that AMD likely has a much stronger semi-custom infrastructure (they've been doing it for over 10 years, and the PS4/Xbone chips helped to keep the company afloat during the FX years) plus an existing relationship with Valve. Intel doesn't have that, and they also don't have the objectively superior product that would convince vendors to switch.
I recently bought an MSI Claw A1M handheld gaming PC, because it was cheap. And the performance of the Core Ultra 5-135H is fine, and I think it can handle E33 at 1080p30 with upscaling, and anything else I'd want to play much better than that. But the battery life and power consumption isn't competitive with even the original Steam Deck, and we haven't seen an indication that Intel has anything to leapfrog AMD chips any time soon.
Intel is no longer in a position to sell at cost or as a loss-leader. 15-20 years ago, when it was dominant, it absolutely could have; it's not an option today.
I'm not asking them to waste money. I just think the profit they should take on this one is cultural relevance rather than cash (all of which they would get back, but just break even)