Intel does make direct to consumer computers from time to time (NUC and compute sticks come to mind), but something like this would be competing with their customers, so that's a big conflict.
There's also nothing in this that really needs Intel to do it, an OEM could easily push a SteamBox. I'm not an OEM, but there's no real hard work here afaik. Make good choices in hardware, test and confirm, put in good antennas so that wireless controllers (that are already in the marketplace) are rock solid. Do some support work, etc.
Consoles are not a big market enough to move a company like Intel. Consoles are a niche in computing. Gaming computing is niche compared to business computing (both in value and in number of users)
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)
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I'm currently moving from Windows to Linux. As a gamer it's been interesting to see my game count under both systems. I believe in Linux my gamescount is about a third of what I can install on Windows. Most of those will run fine under Linux, but there is a very important category that won't. Competitive online games. A good percentage of them have Anti cheat that doesn't support Linux (it can, but the publisher has chosen not to). Sony and MS own many of the top tier studios and would have the opportunity to block their games from playing on SteamOS. People would end up avoiding the Intel console due to game selection.
> 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.
Is it? I haven't been following too closely, although I did see a headline quoting some AMD exec claiming that Intel are fudging examples to hide that they're not in the same league (as AMD would, because they've never shown sketchy graphs before...)
Intel does make direct to consumer computers from time to time (NUC and compute sticks come to mind), but something like this would be competing with their customers, so that's a big conflict.
There's also nothing in this that really needs Intel to do it, an OEM could easily push a SteamBox. I'm not an OEM, but there's no real hard work here afaik. Make good choices in hardware, test and confirm, put in good antennas so that wireless controllers (that are already in the marketplace) are rock solid. Do some support work, etc.
Yes this would drive away their customers to AMD. I am thinking Dell, HP, Lenovo, ASUS, Acer would not take it very well.
Consoles are not a big market enough to move a company like Intel. Consoles are a niche in computing. Gaming computing is niche compared to business computing (both in value and in number of users)
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)
Unfortunately, it's not that simple. I'm currently moving from Windows to Linux. As a gamer it's been interesting to see my game count under both systems. I believe in Linux my gamescount is about a third of what I can install on Windows. Most of those will run fine under Linux, but there is a very important category that won't. Competitive online games. A good percentage of them have Anti cheat that doesn't support Linux (it can, but the publisher has chosen not to). Sony and MS own many of the top tier studios and would have the opportunity to block their games from playing on SteamOS. People would end up avoiding the Intel console due to game selection.
> 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.
>Ultra 5-135H is fine
Well, to be frank - it's not even LNL, let alone PTL.
>and we haven't seen an indication that Intel has anything to leapfrog AMD chips any time soon.
PTL is such indication
Is it? I haven't been following too closely, although I did see a headline quoting some AMD exec claiming that Intel are fudging examples to hide that they're not in the same league (as AMD would, because they've never shown sketchy graphs before...)
Well, PTL benchmarks are out, so ;)
You are asking Intel to become Apple, sort of. Without control over any of the software that runs on their processors.
you copied this from chatgpt and none of it even makes sense get a job
ChatGPT...