If this is going into a console, it's most certainly the new Xbox, who has already been rumored to use a Bulldozer APU.

Wii U is getting an IBM CPU and a RV770-based GPU, not an APU

Cheese-Muffins

leads me to believe that this xbox console is coming pretty soon if their APU is already in the works...

[QUOTE="JB730"]

[QUOTE="ronvalencia"] One problem, AMD APUs are selling well.ronvalencia

thats true, but that's where nvidia wants to compete with AMD.

nvidia doesn't want anything to do with consoles if the winners (and losers too, if those rumours are true) are locked up to support its competition in the future.

if its based on a Southern Islands chip, then its gotta be TSMC.

considering its part of the Radeon product family, i highly doubt its GF.

but yeah i agree - its a tough battle for nvidia. but sometimes there is nothing quite like focus - and that might be what nvidia has over AMD.

**edit**

missed the part where you said Wii U GPU is 32nm. is that confirmed? if so, that's interesting.

[QUOTE="JB730"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] LOL... terrible. I think we're done here. ronvalencia

LOL @ the thought of nvidia coming out of this console generation with a POSITIVE feeling of the console market.

the console they decided to supply chips to was expected to be the #1 selling console this generation, and instead turned out to be the big time loser selling the least amounft of units (ie. chips supplied from nvidia). on top of that, AMD already has great relations with the winners of this console generation. i'd not want much to do with the console market either if i were nvidia. if i were nvidia, i'd want it the market where my competition is set up to dominate for the future to die too - no matter how big/small of a fraction that market contributes to my profit margins (which is your only single point you brought up in your nonexistant argument).

its called competition - its really not a tough concept to grip.

thats true, but that's where nvidia wants to compete with AMD.

nvidia doesn't want anything to do with consoles if the winners of that market (and losers too, if those rumours are true) are locked up to support its competition in the future.

[QUOTE="JB730"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] And you think Nvidia has such a vested interest in this that they're just butthurt about it? Nvidia makes the majority of its profit margin from PCs. Mystic-G

they still took an L to AMD in consoles. the terrible performance of the PS3 probably left em a bitter taste in regards to consoles.

LOL @ the thought of nvidia coming out of this console generation with a POSITIVE feeling of the console market.

the console they decided to supply chips to was expected to be the #1 selling console this generation, and instead turned out to be the big time loser selling the least amounft of units (ie. chips supplied from nvidia). on top of that, AMD already has great relations with the winners of this console generation. i'd not want much to do with the console market either if i were nvidia. if i were nvidia, i'd want it the market where my competition is set up to dominate for the future to die too - no matter how big/small of a fraction that market contributes to my profit margins (which is your only single point you brought up in your nonexistant argument).

its called competition - its really not a tough concept to grip.

[QUOTE="JB730"]

[QUOTE="Mystic-G"] Does that really make sense to you?Mystic-G

the PS3 underperformed in ways nobody thought possible for a sony console prior to this gen.

of course nvidia is disappointed. they supported the loser. their competition supported consoles that performed better. i'd be dissapointed too.

they still took an L to AMD in consoles. the terrible performance of the PS3 probably left em a bitter taste in regards to consoles.

[QUOTE="JB730"]

of course nvidia would say that

they supported the PS3 - ie. were the losers of this console generation.

Mystic-G

the PS3 underperformed in ways nobody thought possible for a sony console prior to this gen.

of course nvidia is disappointed. they supported the loser. their competition supported consoles that performed better. i'd be dissapointed too.

of course nvidia would say that

they supported the PS3 - ie. were the losers of this console generation.

[QUOTE="JB730"]

[QUOTE="tumle"]

Again You can stream PS1 games from you're PS3 to you're PSP right now:) (and it is a video stream)

tumle

sigh. why PS1 games only now? why not PS3 calibre games to your PSP (which is what we are talking about here)?

i gotta start letting you guys come to your own conclusions.

eerrh have you seen the controls on a PSP, Don't think the transition from two analog sticks to one and a lot less buttons will give you that great of a transition, plus I'm not sure the WIFI card in the PSP is good enough to get a proper HD stream (or close to) with minimum lag from the PS3.

the last part is just my speculation, but the first part makes some sense right? :)

but You seem to know better.. :)

your missing a key point. can you play remote play on the psp WHILE playing a ps3 game on your tv at the same time?

[QUOTE="JB730"]

[QUOTE="Timstuff"]

PS3 can output in 3D, which is essentially outputting to two displays (one image for each eye). The only question is if the bluetooth connection has enough bandwidth to stream video, and how much processing power it would take for the Vita to decode that information. In that aspect though, the Vita is quite a bit beefier than the Wii U's controller so I doubt that would be a problem. I highly doubt Nintendo has some super-secret wireless technology that no-one else knows about, either. This is something that could be added via a simple firmware update for both systems, and it would be no more taxing on the PS3's GPU than outputting in 3D.

tumle

that is outputting two offset images at the same time to the same single display output.

that is different from outputting images (however many images) to multiple display outputs simultaneosly. itss NOT just a software feature that acn be solved with a firmware update lol, its a hardware feature that the PS3 does not have.

if the PS3 could do it, it would do it. gamers would love to have multi-display, as evident with GT5's multi-display update feautre that allows you to have multi-display....but ONLY if you use multiple PS3s!

Again You can stream PS1 games from you're PS3 to you're PSP right now:) (and it is a video stream)

sigh. why PS1 games only now? why not PS3 calibre games to your PSP simultaneously while your PS3 is playing on the TV (which is what we are talking about here)?

i gotta start letting you guys come to your own conclusions.

PS3 can output in 3D, which is essentially outputting to two displays (one image for each eye). The only question is if the bluetooth connection has enough bandwidth to stream video, and how much processing power it would take for the Vita to decode that information. In that aspect though, the Vita is quite a bit beefier than the Wii U's controller so I doubt that would be a problem. I highly doubt Nintendo has some super-secret wireless technology that no-one else knows about, either. This is something that could be added via a simple firmware update for both systems, and it would be no more taxing on the PS3's GPU than outputting in 3D.

Timstuff

that is outputting two offset images at the same time to the same single display output.

that is different from outputting images (however many images) to multiple display outputs simultaneosly. it is NOT just a software feature that can be solved with a firmware update lol, its a hardware feature that the PS3 does not have.

if the PS3 could do it, it would do it. gamers would love to have multi-display, as evident with GT5's multi-display update feature that allows you to have multi-display....but ONLY if you use multiple PS3s!